Creationism and Evolution Both

[shiva]

 

Err, no - What you just said, THAT is propoganda. Evolution of species into other species depends on both mutation and genetic diversity (i.e. a diverse gene pool).

 

Today the evolution community claims that evolution (macro evolution i.e one species into another) is achieved through mutation + natural selection. Some evolutionists (like yourself) like to claim that variation in the gene pool somehow has something to do with evolution, unfortunately for them and you they cannot prove it. That claim is like all evolutionary propaganda...nothing more then speculations built upon other speculations, turned into complex theories, and promoted by people with an agenda that blinds them to the truth presented by actual data.

 

I don't like to debate evolution with ardent evolutionists because they are not honest. They are deluded and want to delude others in some bizarre unholy quest. Maybe I've pegged you wrong? I suggest you study some of these writings:

 

http://www.designinference.com/

 

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html

 

I will not respond to you on this topic because frankly it bores me to communicate with evolutionists, what with alll the faux science they like to pretend is real. It's just a waste of time, like arguing with a child about things they do not understand but the child is too egotistic to see the questionable motive and lack of understanding it possesses. I have better things to do with my time.

[Gaea]

 

Today the evolution community claims that evolution (macro evolution i.e one species into another) is achieved through mutation + natural selection. Some evolutionists (like yourself) like to claim that variation in the gene pool somehow has something to do with evolution, unfortunately for them and you they cannot prove it. That claim is like all evolutionary propaganda...nothing more then speculations built upon other speculations, turned into complex theories, and promoted by people with an agenda that blinds them to the truth presented by actual data.

 

I don't like to debate evolution with ardent evolutionists because they are not honest. They are deluded and want to delude others in some bizarre unholy quest. Maybe I've pegged you wrong? I suggest you study some of these writings:

 

http://www.designinference.com/

 

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html

 

I will not respond to you on this topic because frankly it bores me to communicate with evolutionists, what with alll the faux science they like to pretend is real. It's just a waste of time, like arguing with a child about things they do not understand but the child is too egotistic to see the questionable motive and lack of understanding it possesses. I have better things to do with my time.

 

OK, it's your prerogative whether you would like to discuss this topic with an evolutionist like me but i'll argue the case anyway, seeing as this is a discussion forum.

 

 

Today the evolution community claims that evolution (macro evolution i.e one species into another) is achieved through mutation + natural selection.

 

 

This is what i'm trying to communicate to you - perhaps i'm being podantic - but the way evolution is taught at school and university is that genetic variation (which INCLUDES mutation) and natural selection give rise the phenomenon.

 

The conclusive proof can be found in bacteria, which undergo horizontal gene transfer (their version of sex). When a colony is exposed to an antobiotic, many bacteria die out because they are not resistant. But then either a mutation or horizontal transfer that results in novel pathways leads to a resistant strain - hence, the population has evolved to become resistant to the antibiotic. We see it in hospitals with the rise of superbugs. We see it in cancer, where tumours become resistant to therapy. And yes, we see it in nature also.

 

Guys - evolution is a fact, not a theory. I just don't see why you feel so threatened by it. I am happily living my life devoted to God (i hope) and also in complete concordance with science. Why? Coz it's HIS science, not man's (or my) science - He created it, He manipulates it and it is HE who reveals it to us. Everything else is a mystery (and this is where atheists seem to trip over).

 

Bottom line - there's nothing wrong with accepting evolution because the fact of evolution and the belief in God or Krsna are not mutually exclusive.

[Kulapavana]

 

Bottom line - there's nothing wrong with accepting evolution because the fact of evolution and the belief in God or Krsna are not mutually exclusive.

 

that may be correct, but I would dispute your bold statement that evolution is a fact. first of all which evolution? you mention bacteria as a proof of this "fact". actually, bacterias can be seen as a proof evolution as the never ending quest for the most resilent life form is a hoax. Bacterias ARE the most resilient form of life - period. there is no need to evolve past bacteria stage as they are the ultimate survivalists. I could go on and on about the follies of typical evolutionary theories but I will just give you one more thing to chew on.

 

modern genetics can be seen as a proof that mechanistic evolution is a hoax. natural breeding, mutations, etc never lead to new forms of life (profoundly different species). it takes CONSCIOUS and EXPERT genetic engineering to generate such forms, as the genetic material needed for such major changes is ABSENT in the initial gene pool.

[theist]

 

modern genetics can be seen as a proof that mechanistic evolution is a hoax. natural breeding, mutations, etc never lead to new forms of life (profoundly different species). it takes CONSCIOUS and EXPERT genetic engineering to generate such forms, as the genetic material needed for such major changes is ABSENT in the initial gene pool.-Kulapavanna

 

<!-- / message -->

 

 

I am of the belief that Earth is under the supervision of higher life forms who have been overseeing the activities of this planet for a very, very long time. And who are responsible for genetically modifying into existence the human form by adding the few mystery genes that separate humans from the apes.

 

Here are a few words on this from Zacharia Sitchin. Now I quickly depart from Sitchin on some of his speculations, he does raise some valid questions on wherefrom these 223 mystery genes came from. The same question Kulapavanna raised above; the same question modern scientists are afraid to approach.

 

 

 

<APPLET codeBase=./ height=24 width=120 code=fphover.class>

</p> 

</APPLET>

 

 

 

 

Sensational Human Genome Discovery

 

 

 

 

 

THE CASE OF ADAM’S ALIEN GENES

 

 

In whose image was The Adam – the prototype of modern humans, Homo sapiens – created?

The Bible asserts that the Elohim said: “Let us fashion the Adam in our image and after our likeness.” But if one is to accept a tentative explanation for enigmatic genes that humans possess, offered when the deciphering of the human genome was announced in mid-February, the feat was decided upon by a group of bacteria!

“Humbling” was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding – that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm’s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!

Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process – how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form – culminating with Homo sapiens.

 

The “Head-scratching” Discovery

It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.

How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”

In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

 

An Immense Difference

Now, at first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species such as ours.

The human genome is made up of about three billion neucleotides (the “letters” A-C-G-T which stand for the initials of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of "letters"). The difference between one individual person and another amounts to about one “letter” in a thousand in the DNA “alphabet.” The difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300.

So, 223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!

An analysis of the functions of these genes through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature, shows that they include not only proteins involved in important physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA – the so-called “Eve” DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all the way back to a single “Eve.” That finding alone raises doubt regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.

 

A Shaky Theory

How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?

“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.

“We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.

“It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.

But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?

[Gaea]

 

that may be correct, but I would dispute your bold statement that evolution is a fact. first of all which evolution? you mention bacteria as a proof of this "fact". actually, bacterias can be seen as a proof evolution as the never ending quest for the most resilent life form is a hoax. Bacterias ARE the most resilient form of life - period. there is no need to evolve past bacteria stage as they are the ultimate survivalists. I could go on and on about the follies of typical evolutionary theories but I will just give you one more thing to chew on.

 

modern genetics can be seen as a proof that mechanistic evolution is a hoax. natural breeding, mutations, etc never lead to new forms of life (profoundly different species). it takes CONSCIOUS and EXPERT genetic engineering to generate such forms, as the genetic material needed for such major changes is ABSENT in the initial gene pool.

 

Yes, it's true bacteria are ultimate survivalists. That does not disprove evolution though - bacteria continually evolve to suit their environment. In the last 100 years we have seen a catalogue of new bcteria and especially viruses that hve evolved to adapt to their human-made surroundings. A good example of this is HIV.

 

Regarding your view starting "modern genetice..." : the one tenet of evolution that non-proponents of evolution will always attack is the one that is the most difficult to observe - cumulative variation and mutation into a new species (profoundly new, as you say) takes a very very long time. That's why we rely on fossils. But then, again, this will always be attacked and disputed, so there's nothing i could say to convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

On your point of intelligent design: i agree. There is an intelligence driving evolution, i believe. The mechanism, i believe, is evolution by gradual mutation/variational cumulation. Again, that is not inconsistent with Vaishanava belief system.

[Gaea]

 

<!-- / message -->

 

The “Head-scratching” Discovery

It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.

How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”

In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

 

Yes, this is the horizontal gene transfer that i was talking about earlier.

 

I specifically have not spoke about human evolution because that is one point that i personally contest myself.

[aupmanyav]

Why should I contest evolution, conditions for which were created by Krsna?

 

Hari Bol.

[Gaea]

 

Why should I contest evolution, conditions for which were created by Krsna?

 

Hari Bol.

 

Exactly

[Kulapavana]

 

Yes, it's true bacteria are ultimate survivalists. That does not disprove evolution though - bacteria continually evolve to suit their environment. In the last 100 years we have seen a catalogue of new bcteria and especially viruses that hve evolved to adapt to their human-made surroundings. A good example of this is HIV.

 

adaptation to the environment by slight changes that undeniably exists is hardly the evolution scientists have in mind. some types of bacteria have not changed substantially in well over 1 billion years. in the last 100 years we have DISCOVERED new bacteria and viruses. There is zero proof that they APPEARED in the last 100 years. You seriously extrapolate the data to prove your theory, but such extrapolation is not a proof.

 

As to the factor of time: in the laboratory you can simulate extraordinarily long evolutionary mechanisms using fast breeding organisms such as bacteria. STILL the same principle holds: you cannot generate substantially new species using the natural mechanisms. 5 years selectively breeding bacteria is the equivalent to millions of years in evolutionary development for much higher organisms, such as mammals. yet, in the fossil record we see EXPLOSIONS of diversity within very short periods of time. actually the evolutionists gave up on the "gradual natural changes" mechanism for evolution long time ago.

[sanatan]

 

This does not say that Brhgu taught "Darwinian" evolution. He did teach how the primordial elements evolved one from another.

 

The major flaw that these materialistic evolutionist have is that they think LIFE evolved from some random molecular mixing. LIFE does not evolve into being. Life has no beginning nor will it ever cease to be.

 

That's the whole point that Srila Prabhupada was always trying to make...science generally leaves a first cause...God...out of the evolutionary picture.

 

Sure, there's plenty of physical evidence for Darwinian evolution, as well as plenty of evidence, physical and experiential, for transcendental spiritual life. I don't have a problem with either one. These evidences exist in numerous tangible forms and denying either is not going to make it go away or conform exactly to any given scripture.

 

The big problem that fundamentalist Christians are having is that Darwinian evolution doesn't fit into their absolutely literal reading of the Bible, so they've invented a bogus reality-disconnect called "Creation Science".

[Gaea]

 

adaptation to the environment by slight changes that undeniably exists is hardly the evolution scientists have in mind.

Small changes is exactly what evolution is about. Gradual changes eventually lead to a leap.

 

some types of bacteria have not changed substantially in well over 1 billion years.

 

Because they don't need to. But you will find MOST bacteria will have changed, especially the ones that have adapted in symbiosis with larger creatures - such as the bacteria in your own gut.

 

in the last 100 years we have DISCOVERED new bacteria and viruses.

 

yep.

 

There is zero proof that they APPEARED in the last 100 years. You seriously extrapolate the data to prove your theory, but such extrapolation is not a proof.

 

No, not appear - evolve. By small changes. Just as you build a house brick by brick, in 12 months you'll have a huge house, which was quite different from the original brick.

 

As to the factor of time: in the laboratory you can simulate extraordinarily long evolutionary mechanisms using fast breeding organisms such as bacteria.

 

That's news to me. You can accelarate the rate of mutation and diversity though - for example, you can expose a bacterial culture to UV light, which increases the chances of mutation.

 

STILL the same principle holds: you cannot generate substantially new species using the natural mechanisms. 5 years selectively breeding bacteria is the equivalent to millions of years in evolutionary development for much higher organisms, such as mammals.

 

I don't know where you're getting this info from, but it's not as easy as that. Even so, i'll argue the case tho... Plants have an extraordinary genome - they "suffer" from polyploidy and a whole host of genetic diseases and yet they persist and survive. If you expose them to such genotoxicity you will eventually get a situation where two plants cannot mate to produce fertile offspring. By the way, the definition of a species: Two organisms are of the same species if they can mate and produce fertile offspring. You can look up research into the oil-seed rape plant (aribidopsis thaliana) and tobacco plant for info in this area.

 

yet, in the fossil record we see EXPLOSIONS of diversity within very short periods of time.

 

Wow, yes, this is so true. It brings a tear to eye to think of this wonderful creation and how Krsna has concieved it with but a fraction of His intelligence. He indeed is in the evolutionary driving seat.

 

actually the evolutionists gave up on the "gradual natural changes" mechanism for evolution long time ago.

No. Stop making stuff up. They have not given up that notion at all. Gradual change is a fundamental concept of evolution.

 

p.s. i do not intend to tread on devotees beliefs with my comments - i am just putting across my view - so i apologise if i have offended anyone and pray for forgiveness!

[theist]

 

Yes, this is the horizontal gene transfer that i was talking about earlier.

 

I specifically have not spoke about human evolution because that is one point that i personally contest myself.

 

Do you accept the idea that this transfer of genes was engineered by an off planet species i.e. "aliens", servants of the Prajapatis?

 

If so would it be so far fetched to imagine that they have actually seeded life on this planet in all it's manifest forms from the microbes on up to humans? They may have been involved in planning and structuring project Earth Planet for billions of years.

 

Rather different than molecular evolutionists present notions even concerning the appearance of all life forms other than human.

[theist]

 

p.s. i do not intend to tread on devotees beliefs with my comments - i am just putting across my view - so i apologise if i have offended anyone and pray for forgiveness!

 

No need for such worries. We all accept the Supreme Person as the Original Cause so the rest is just details. Philosophical speculation and debates is a wonderful way for us to have our own beliefs challenged. Often we are reluctant to do that ourselves and I believe it vital that it be done.

 

Problems only arise when we are emotionally attached to our beliefs and become angry and overly defensive when they are challenged.

 

I am not scientifically educated by any stretch so I can't add much but it seems Kulapavana and Shiva are offering plenty of challenges to the predominant paradigm so I get to just read and learn. Cruisin'

[Kulapavana]

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kulapavana

actually the evolutionists gave up on the "gradual natural changes" mechanism for evolution long time ago.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->No. Stop making stuff up. They have not given up that notion at all. Gradual change is a fundamental concept of evolution.

 

 

I'm sure you are familiar with the theory of punctuated equilibrium based on extensive studies of living and extinct species groups introduced to explain evolutionary gaps. The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, in turn does not explain population biology.

[Kulapavana]

one other issue needs to be raised:

 

WHAT is the driving force of the evolution in the Darwinian sense?

 

if the answer is "survivability" - than there would be absolutely no incentive for life forms to evolve past bacteria.

[Gaea]

 

Do you accept the idea that this transfer of genes was engineered by an off planet species i.e. "aliens", servants of the Prajapatis?

If so would it be so far fetched to imagine that they have actually seeded life on this planet in all it's manifest forms from the microbes on up to humans? They may have been involved in planning and structuring project Earth Planet for billions of years.

 

 

I don't know whether Prajapatis or other "aliens" propogated evolutionary explosions but i think it is clear that there is some "mechanism" in place. I have always liked to believe it is divine will, acting through the laws of physics, but i don't think it's so far-fetched that off-world forces are at play. The notion that they may have started this billions of years ago is intriguing - again, no far-fetched in my opinion. Sounds pretty star-trekkie.

[Gaea]

 

No need for such worries. We all accept the Supreme Person as the Original Cause so the rest is just details. Philosophical speculation and debates is a wonderful way for us to have our own beliefs challenged. Often we are reluctant to do that ourselves and I believe it vital that it be done.

 

Problems only arise when we are emotionally attached to our beliefs and become angry and overly defensive when they are challenged.

 

I am not scientifically educated by any stretch so I can't add much but it seems Kulapavana and Shiva are offering plenty of challenges to the predominant paradigm so I get to just read and learn. Cruisin'

 

Thank you. As ever, i find such a wonderful source of wisdom on this forum through lovely devotees!

[Guest guest]

We hear a lot about evolution in scientific terms, but one thing we don't hear much about it DEVOLUTION.

 

Is evolution the only phenomenon in the transformation of species?

 

Or, can there sometimes be a devolution that is confused for evolution?

[Gaea]

 

I'm sure you are familiar with the theory of punctuated equilibrium based on extensive studies of living and extinct species groups introduced to explain evolutionary gaps. The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, in turn does not explain population biology.

 

It's great that you have mentioned punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory of no/little genetic change (i.e. no evolution of species). In fact, the current thinking in evolution is a mix of both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism. In this theory species are constantly undergoing small changes in genomes that have no specific change in phenotype. Slection pressure and other minor changes might cause catastrophic or noticeable phenotypic change (i.e. large jumps). Look on the wikipedia site for scientifc papers thta illustrate this.

[Gaea]

 

Or, can there sometimes be a devolution that is confused for evolution?

 

 

yes that is the case - it is confused. We can see in isolated ecological systems that species have "let down their guards" due to a lack of selection pressure. A good example is flightless birds.

[Guest guest]

 

yes that is the case - it is confused. We can see in isolated ecological systems that species have "let down their guards" due to a lack of selection pressure. A good example is flightless birds.

 

then there are laws of evolution and devolution that are both working at the same time.

Impovement of the species is "evolution" and the degrading of the species is devolution.

 

Then the presence of evolution and devolution both, present somewhat of a challenge to the "evolution" theory in that there is another law of devolution that is happening in the world at the same time.

 

The fact that devolution is also happening throws somewhat of a monkey wrench into the evolution theory.

 

Not all species are evolving. some are devolving.

that shows a reverse principle to the evolution concept.

[Gaea]

 

then there are laws of evolution and devolution that are both working at the same time.

Impovement of the species is "evolution" and the degrading of the species is devolution.

 

Then the presence of evolution and devolution both, present somewhat of a challenge to the "evolution" theory in that there is another law of devolution that is happening in the world at the same time.

 

The fact that devolution is also happening throws somewhat of a monkey wrench into the evolution theory.

 

Not all species are evolving. some are devolving.

that shows a reverse principle to the evolution concept.

 

Well it's not really devolution - more of a relaxation of selection pressure. There's no incentive to evolve, so genetic variation that has no apparent disadvantage is allowed to persist.

[Guest guest]

I have heard that certain creatures have not changed at all in hundreds of millions of years.

If evolution was a law of nature, then all creatures would have evolved.

Fossil records show that some creatures are the same now as they were hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

A thornback ray fossil dating back to the Mesozoic era (245-65 million years ago) has exactly the same characteristics as those living in the sea today.

 

Ammonites emerged some 350 million years ago, then became extinct 65 million years ago. But during the intervening 300 million years, the structure seen in the fossils never changed.

 

Horseshoe crab fossil from the Ordovician period. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.

 

This 170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic period is no different from living shrimps.

 

The oldest known fossil scorpion, found in East Kirkton in Scotland. This species, known as Pulmonoscorpis kirktoniensis, is 320 million years old, yet no different from today's scorpions.

 

 

The paleontologists who proposed the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution admitted that the stasis in the fossil record presented a "problem." But since they considered it impossible to abandon the idea of evolution, they suggested that living things came into being not through small changes, but by sudden and very large ones. According to this claim, evolutionary changes took place in very small intervals of time, and in very narrow populations. Until this sudden jump, the population had exhibited little or no change and remained in a kind of equilibrium. Since the hypothetical population concerned was a narrow one, so-called large mutations would very quickly be favored by natural selection, and thus—somehow—the emergence of a new species would be established.

 

Punctuated equilibrium suggests that the formation of a new species took place within communities containing very small numbers of plants or animals. But this model of evolution has now been refuted, with a great deal of proof, by the sciences of microbiology and genetics. (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted.) Nor is there any scientific basis for punctuated equilibrium's claim regarding "narrow populations," put forward in order to account for the stasis in the fossil record and therefore, the absence of intermediate forms. Punctuated equilibrium was dealt a severe blow when it was revealed that in genetic terms, a restricted population presents no advantage for the theory of evolution, but rather a disadvantage! Far from developing in such a robust way as to give rise to a new species, narrow populations actually cause genetic defects. The reason is because the individuals in small isolated groups constantly reproduce within a narrow genetic pool. Therefore, normally "heterozygote" individuals—those enjoying a wide gene pool—become "homozygote" or more restricted in their genetic variations. The result is that normally recessive defective genes become dominant, thus producing ever-greater defects and genetic diseases in the population.

 

Therefore, the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record cannot be a result of evolution taking place in narrow populations. In addition to all these scientific impossibilities, the adherents of punctuated equilibrium can't explain why traces of changes in such small populations are never found in the fossil record.

 

This clearly demonstrates that both the gradual model of evolution that Darwin proposed, and the punctuated equilibrium model put forward to cover up its deficiencies, are not able to account for the stasis in the fossil record, the sudden appearance of living forms, and the lack of transitional ones. Whatever theory may be proposed, all claims that living organisms underwent evolution will end in failure and are scientifically condemned to collapse, because living things did not evolve. God has created all living things in their perfect states, from nothing. Therefore, all claims that living things evolved are doomed to disappear.

[gHari]

 

[...] i don't think it's so far-fetched that off-world forces are at play. The notion that they may have started this billions of years ago is intriguing - again, no far-fetched in my opinion. Sounds pretty star-trekkie.

Oh no, even Theist is becoming a Scientologist!

[theist]

 

Oh no, even Theist is becoming a Scientologist!

 

Now a Scientologists?? Star-trekkie?? I ain't no Spoof with pointy ears.

 

 

 

 

Funny thing Spoof ripped this off from a 60's sci-fi TV show about aliens amongst us here on earth, The Invaders I think. You could only tell them by their hands which were formed like this.

 

Before that it is an ancient Rabbinical sign that signifies the name of God.

 

Continued jokes along this line will get you guys abducted!!! I'm connected. I got juice. So back off.